Terminate an ADB network connection to a specific device or all connected devices. Stops remote debugging links by disconnecting the given host and port.
adb disconnect a network device (or all if host_port omitted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_port | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior — that omitting host_port disconnects ALL devices, which is an important blast-radius fact. However, it says nothing about whether the device must be connected, error behavior, or reversibility (that reconnection requires `connect`).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no filler, and the critical default behavior is placed immediately after the core action. Nothing is wasted or buried.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a single-parameter tool needs little else. The description covers the action and the null-default case; only error/prerequisite behavior is missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field "Host Port" with a null default, so the description does the real work: it identifies host_port as the target device and explains that null means disconnect everything. That is exactly the semantics an agent needs and it goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (disconnect) and resource (network device), and the mention of `adb` grounds it in the tool family. It doesn't explicitly name `connect` as its counterpart sibling, but the operation is unambiguous and distinguishable from the other 80+ tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical explains the omitting-host_port case, which is a usage condition, but it is really a parameter behavior note rather than guidance on when to pick this tool over `connect` or when disconnection is appropriate. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.